HOF Questions & Answers

da_Vinci said:
Looks like we may have some glitch in the score tables for warlord diplo quick on standard inland sea with Sul. The Master table lists me with a 1958 score and a bronze ... but that belongs to Phoenix_Reaper. I had an 1875 score. For the detailed score table, I am not there at all. The date tables look right. I have 2nd score and second date, with PR and RS swapping 1 and 3 positions.

Now if only there was a combined table ... :mischief: ;)

dV
Click to expand...

Why that's very kind of you to point that out. I'm not familiar enough with the tables to notice that. =)
 
da_Vinci said:
Wow, each of my Settler Duel Pangea Quick Dom games with a different Civ makes its own separate table of one? It's a three warrior rush any way you slice it, making the civ used almost irrelevant. :lol: The luck of distance between capitals has the most to do with times in that scenario. ;)

dV
Click to expand...

Yeah, the speed in finding them, and the land they're on are the main variables I find. I tend to do a 4 warrior rush unless I find him before the 3rd is built, and get the GG before then too. If he only has 3 hexes to attack from, or river to attack over, I'll go with 4.

Build order is simple. Warrior - repeat :)
 
da_Vinci said:
Looks like we may have some glitch in the score tables for warlord diplo quick on standard inland sea with Sul. The Master table lists me with a 1958 score and a bronze ... but that belongs to Phoenix_Reaper. I had an 1875 score. For the detailed score table, I am not there at all. The date tables look right. I have 2nd score and second date, with PR and RS swapping 1 and 3 positions.

Now if only there was a combined table ... :mischief: ;)

dV
Click to expand...
Okay, I found the issue. I was counting some games that I shouldn't have in the rankings. Fixed it. Thanks. :goodjob:
 
How come policy saving has been disallowed for HOF games now? I remember people used to thing that policy saving was a valid strategy and not an exploit?

Though its hardly needed anymore with how much more powerful tradition + liberty are.

Also why cant DLC civs be used as opponents? Its very tedious choosing each opponent for every game of Civ V, especially when a lot of people are going to want to restart until they have a strong starting location.
 
Peets said:
Is it ok to send an autosave turn for a submission?
Click to expand...
since you don't know your 1/3rd and 2/3rd point when you start your game (unless you're going for a time victory), autosaves are expected.
 
vexing said:
since you don't know your 1/3rd and 2/3rd point when you start your game (unless you're going for a time victory), autosaves are expected.
Click to expand...

Oh, I thought you had to send 1/3 and 2/3 of the entire gmae turns, so with a quick game it would be turn 110 and turn 220.

Denniz said:
Autosaves are okay. Just becareful with the last one. We need a save after you get through the post victory screens. The autosave from that turn wouldn't include the victory information.
Click to expand...

Yes, that won't be difficult to forget :)

Thanks both!
 
Maybe this has been answered, but...

Is it ok to sell resources (or open borders or...) for only gold per turn (no lump sum) and then break the agreement before the agreement expires?
 
walkerjks said:
Is it ok to sell resources (or open borders or...) for only gold per turn (no lump sum) and then break the agreement before the agreement expires?
Click to expand...

If you are only receiving gpt for your agreement, you can break at any time as you are not getting the full benefit.
 
Ozbenno said:
If you are only receiving gpt for your agreement, you can break at any time as you are not getting the full benefit.
Click to expand...

Well... since we can't play without barbarians, and its pretty simple to allow barbarians to pillage the resource you just traded away... well, is there a ruling on that? Not that I would do it intentionallly (which to me seems against the standards of fair play as described by the rules already announced), but sometimes it will happen and sometimes the temptation to not do all in my power to prevent it is just too great...

Just curious. And maybe a little bit being troublemaker.
 
kcd_swede said:
Well... since we can't play without barbarians, and its pretty simple to allow barbarians to pillage the resource you just traded away... well, is there a ruling on that?
Click to expand...

the second thing in the banned exploits list is

Resource Trade/Pillage and other gold/GPT exploits
 
kcd_swede said:
Well... since we can't play without barbarians, and its pretty simple to allow barbarians to pillage the resource you just traded away... well, is there a ruling on that? Not that I would do it intentionallly (which to me seems against the standards of fair play as described by the rules already announced), but sometimes it will happen and sometimes the temptation to not do all in my power to prevent it is just too great...

Just curious. And maybe a little bit being troublemaker.
Click to expand...

I think the point is this - if you are getting gpt, it doesn't really matter why the agreement was broken. DoW or barbarian pillage, same deal. You got gpt for x turns and they got the resource for x turns. No imbalance, really, other than you control when the agreement ends.

I asked the question specifically to deal with situations when I think I *might* attack an AI in the next 30 turns (standard speed), but have an extra resource to sell. based on the rules, it's clear that selling for a lump sum with the intent to break the agreement early is not kosher, but I was curious about whether I could milk a bit of cash from the AI before the DoW.
 
walkerjks said:
I think the point is this - if you are getting gpt, it doesn't really matter why the agreement was broken. DoW or barbarian pillage, same deal. You got gpt for x turns and they got the resource for x turns. No imbalance, really, other than you control when the agreement ends.

I asked the question specifically to deal with situations when I think I *might* attack an AI in the next 30 turns (standard speed), but have an extra resource to sell. based on the rules, it's clear that selling for a lump sum with the intent to break the agreement early is not kosher, but I was curious about whether I could milk a bit of cash from the AI before the DoW.
Click to expand...
Correct.

kcd_swede said:
Well... since we can't play without barbarians, and its pretty simple to allow barbarians to pillage the resource you just traded away... well, is there a ruling on that? Not that I would do it intentionallly (which to me seems against the standards of fair play as described by the rules already announced), but sometimes it will happen and sometimes the temptation to not do all in my power to prevent it is just too great...

Just curious. And maybe a little bit being troublemaker.
Click to expand...

Peets said:
Can you see who brakes the agreement?
Click to expand...
When it comes to Lump sum trades for gold, it doesn't matter who broke deal or how the deal was broken. It is a question of whether there is a pattern of repeated exploitation of lump sum trades. Since no one is supposed to do it at all, any occurances should be really rare. And I mean across many games.
 
Can I break luxury for lump sum deals by declaring war? Then sell the same luxury to a different civ and declare war to break it again?

The declaring war part means everyone will hate me. Is that enough of a penalty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

aafritz17
G-Minor CCXXIV
Replies
4
Views
484
aafritz17
aafritz17
aafritz17
  • Sticky
G-Major CLIII
Replies
2
Views
1K
billybgame
B
aafritz17
  • Sticky
G-Minor CCXXVI
Replies
0
Views
365
aafritz17
aafritz17
aafritz17
G-Minor CCXXIII
Replies
2
Views
517
aafritz17
aafritz17
aafritz17
G-Major CL
Replies
2
Views
604
aafritz17
aafritz17
Back
Top Bottom